Papers › Better sampling in explanation methods can prevent dieselgate-like deception
Better sampling in explanation methods can prevent dieselgate-like deception
Domen Vreš, Marko Robnik Šikonja
Machine learning models are used in many sensitive areas where besides predictive accuracy their comprehensibility is also important. Interpretability of prediction models is necessary to determine their biases and causes of errors, and is a necessary prerequisite for users' confidence. For complex state-of-the-art black-box models post-hoc model-independent explanation techniques are an established solution. Popular and effective techniques, such as IME, LIME, and SHAP, use perturbation of instance features to explain individual predictions. Recently, Slack et al. (2020) put their robustness into question by showing that their outcomes can be manipulated due to poor perturbation sampling employed. This weakness would allow dieselgate type cheating of owners of sensitive models who could deceive inspection and hide potentially unethical or illegal biases existing in their predictive models. This could undermine public trust in machine learning models and give rise to legal restrictions on their use. We show that better sampling in these explanation methods prevents malicious manipulations. The proposed sampling uses data generators that learn the training set distribution and generate new perturbation instances much more similar to the training set. We show that the improved sampling increases the robustness of the LIME and SHAP, while previously untested method IME is already the most robust of all.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections